9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (4) TMI 121X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the mother of the respondent No. 1, he wanted the appellant to give in writing that he was occupying the premises as a paying guest. The appellant did not accede to the request made. This gave rise for the appellant to file a suit for declaration, namely, Suit No. 2365 of 1975 in the Small Causes Court, Bombay for a decree in his favour that he be declared as a deemed tenant of the accommodation and an injunction was also prayed against the defendant respondents to the effect that they would not disturb his possession over the premises in question. The suit was decreed. The appeal filed before the Division Bench of the Small Causes Court was dismissed. A Writ petition, however, preferred by the respondent has been allowed by the High Court holding that the appellant before us is a 'paying guest'. Hence, this appeal against the judgment and order of the High Court. 4. The trial court while decreeing the suit recorded a finding that the plaintiff, namely, the appellant before us, with his family, is separately residing in the apartment which is self-contained whereas the defendants are residing in the other portion of the terrace flat. While dealing with the facts of the cas ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the lift there is only one main door which opens into passage and major part of the accommodation consisting of three bedrooms etc. is in occupation of the licensor and on the left hand side one bedroom, kitchen and bathroom is in occupation of the appellant. Each of the two have doors leading to their premises. While leading to the accommodation in the possession of the appellant there falls a servant quarter and an urinal in possession of the licensor. In the corner of the terrace on the side of the appellant there is a room which has been in occupation of one Shri Ajhwani. In respect of the terrace the appellant had prayed for a relief that it was also in his use and a part of his tenancy but this relief has been refused. It also transpired that the terrace also leads to one of the bedrooms in occupation of the licensor according to the map filed by him. Before we proceed further we may peruse the definition or different terms as defined under the Bombay Rent Act. "5. In this Act unless there is anything repugnant to the subject or context,- xxx xxx xxx (4A) "licensee", in respect of any premises or any part thereof, means the person who is in occupation of the premises or su ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d under Section 15A a person who may be in occupation of any premises on February 1, 1973 which is not less than a room, as a licensee, shall be deemed to have become a tenant of tat premises. The appellant has acquired the status of a deemed tenant under Section 15A or not will be dependent upon the fact as to whether he is to be treated as a 'licensee' or a 'paying guest'. 7. The three ingredients of the expression 'paying guest', as defined, have been indicated above. If the three conditions are fulfilled i.e. the person concerned is not a member of the family; but has been given a part of the premises in which the licensor resides, under the law, it would mean that such a person is a paying guest. Nothing more is required or envisaged in the meaning of the word 'paying guest'. The trial court and the appellate court have imported the ingredients of a unity of a residence in the premises with the licensor and dominion and superior kind of possession of the licensor over the subordinate nature of occupation of a paying guest. The appellate court has specifically considered the meaning of the expression 'paying guest' as under the English L ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... indings recorded by the courts. The trial court in the discussion under the heading 'reasons' observed thus: ".....the premises in suit are admittedly a part and parcel of the entire terrace flat of which the defendants are tenants. There is no dispute on the point that in the other apartment viz. that in use of defendants, they are living with their family". At another place in paragraph 21 of the judgment the trial court found as follows: ".....the premises given to the plaintiff under the agreement of October 1969, are separate from the premises used and occupied by the defendants though the two form part and parcel of one common terrace flat." 8. The appellate court while considering the case of the defendant licensor that there are certain parts of premises which case has not been accepted, but it has been observed as follows at one place: "...similarly, the fact that there is only main entrance to the entire flat also is not very significant. Because it is in evidence that appellants as well as the respondent can open & lock this door independently." 9. From the above findings and observations it is clear that basically it is one terrace flat and one premises wi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1990 (1) Rent Control Reporter page 470, Miss Dinoo V. Byramji v. Mrs. Dolly J. Jahangir Ranji . The Bombay High Court in this case has held the occupier to be a 'paying guest', but the agreement itself provided that the occupant shall not have any exclusive right to the use and occupy the room. The meaning of the word 'lodger' under the English law has also been referred to and it was observed that retention of control by the licensor is the determinative factor. But on facts of the facts of the case of its own it was held to be a case of a 'paying guest'. One of the decisions referred to in the above noted decision namely, Kent v. Fittall reported in 1911 Law Reports Kings Bench Division, Vol. 2 page 1102 would also not be very relevant as we are concerned with the word 'paying guest' as defined under the Act. Same is the position in regard to the decision reported in 1948 Vol. 2 All England Law Reports 1948 pages 588, Helman v. Horsham. In that case the court was considering the meaning of the word 'lodger' as assigned in context with the provisions of the statutes under consideration and the English law on the point. It had also referred ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... College of Technology and Ors., observed at page 1400: "A particular expression is often defined by the Legislature by using the word 'means' or the word 'includes'. Sometimes the words 'mean and includes' are used. The use of the word 'means' indicates that 'definition is a hard-and-fast definition, and no other meaning can be assigned to the expression than is put down in definition." (See Gough v. Gough (1891) 2 QB 665; Punjab Land Development and Reclamation Corporation Ltd. v. Presiding Officer, Labour Court, ". A reference may also be made to Inland Revenue Commissioner v. Joiner, (1975) 3 All England Law Reports 1050 at page 1061 (HL). 14. Generally, ordinary meaning is to be assigned to any word or phrase used or defined in a statute. Therefore, unless there is any vagueness or ambiguity, no occasion will arise to interpret the term in a manner which may add something to the meaning of the word which ordinarily does not so mean by the definition itself, more particularly, where it is a restrictive definition. Unless there are compelling reasons to do so, meaning of a restrictive and exhaustive definition would not be expanded or made ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
